On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:47:00 +0000 Kārlis Repsons <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > in fact, all spam filters are normally designed with an intent to get > rid of spam, not ham, but anyway, I'm confused with my possible > chances to miss some mails for no really valid reason. I've seen that > long list in [1], but that doesn't say much of what should be > avoided. For example, I remember somewhere it was said, that SpamCop > may be "too aggressive". So, how should I understand better what to > avoid in what cases? (I'd rather leave out some dangerous tests and > train Bayes filter) Anything particularly dangerous is off or low-scored by default. When people say that Spam cop is too aggressive (and it's actually much more reliable than it used to be) they are talking about outright rejection not scoring. I suggest that even if you don't want to train Bayes you still use it with autotraining. The negative scores from Bayes help protect against FP's.
